The only problem I had with Oliver Wao is that I think it kind of falls apart at the end. But I think that about a lot of novels.

The first novel I read with footnotes was Middlemarch. There were a ton of footnotes, but I was grateful for them, and I kind of have a fondness for footnotes as a result.

I remember the first time I read a Susan Johnson (very explicit) romance, which was the first (and so far, only) romance I've read with footnotes!

What were they? Illustrations? ::boggles::

I thought the footnotes in Oscar Wao worked narratively, because they were the tangents the storyteller would have gone off on if he were telling you the story in person.

Also, I really appreciated the comment someone posted here about hearing Diaz speak (or reading an interview or something), and his saying that he did stuff on purpose so that no one who wasn't a Dominican uber-geek would get everything -- that was to make the reader have the immigrant experience of basically understanding what was going on, while at the same time knowing you were missing out on nuance.

Susan Johnson used to put in footnotes to explain historical references, so she wouldn't have to dump info in the text. The first time I saw them I was sort of amazed, too.

What were they? Illustrations?

I think the book was Forever (not the Judy Blume one!), which was mostly set in turn-of-the-century France. The footnotes were explaining various historical issues, for everything from eating habits to architectural details.

ETA: or what Amy said.

that was to make the reader have the immigrant experience of basically understanding what was going on, while at the same time knowing you were missing out on nuance.

Huh. As a reader, that would piss me off monumentally because for me, the best experience with a book is to be able to lose myself completely in it, not to be held deliberately at a remove.

I've read Susan Johnson ones too--they're historical footnotes. They're kinda cool. I think in some of hers they're endnotes, so you can look later if you want. I always thought they were neat. Stuff like "yes, there were condoms in this year, they were made out of blah blah blah, but they were only generally used with prostitutes" or whatever. Or "this was a big deal because if this law had been passed yaddda yadda Corn Laws" etc etc.

I thought the footnotes in Oscar Wao worked narratively, because they were the tangents the storyteller would have gone off on if he were telling you the story in person.

Right, that's what I liked about them.

Also, I really appreciated the comment someone posted here about hearing Diaz speak (or reading an interview or something), and his saying that he did stuff on purpose so that no one who wasn't a Dominican uber-geek would get everything -- that was to make the reader have the immigrant experience of basically understanding what was going on, while at the same time knowing you were missing out on nuance.

Huh. That's interesting, and I respect his intention. But I'm still with Barb. I read the book to have a reading experience, not an immigrant experience.

As a reader, that would piss me off monumentally because for me, the best experience with a book is to be able to lose myself completely in it, not to be held deliberately at a remove.

I had no problem losing myself in the book at all. If anything the use of the different languages made me understand the characters and made them come vividly to life.

(Jesse, you said exactly what I wanted to say but much smarterer.)